Effect of Psychological and Medication Therapies for Insomnia on Daytime Functions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Daytime functional impairments are the primary reasons for patients with insomnia to seek treatment, yet little is known about what the optimal treatment is for improving daytime functions and how best to proceed with treatment for patients whose insomnia has not remitted. Objectives: To compare the efficacy of behavioral therapy (BT) and zolpidem as initial therapies for improving daytime functions among patients with insomnia and evaluate the added value of a second treatment for patients whose insomnia has not remitted. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this sequential multiple-assignment randomized clinical trial conducted at institutions in Canada and the US, 211 adults with chronic insomnia disorder were enrolled between May 1, 2012, and December 31, 2015, and followed up for 12 months. Statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis in April and October 2023. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to either BT or zolpidem as first-stage therapy, and those whose insomnia had not remitted received a second-stage psychological therapy (BT or cognitive therapy) or medication therapy (zolpidem or trazodone). Main Outcomes and Measures: Study outcomes were daytime symptoms of insomnia, including mood disturbances, fatigue, functional impairments of insomnia, and scores on the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical and mental health components. Results: Among 211 adults with insomnia (132 women [63%]; mean [SD] age, 45.6 [14.9] years), 104 were allocated to BT and 107 to zolpidem at the first stage. First-stage treatment with BT or zolpidem yielded significant and equivalent benefits for most of the daytime outcomes, including depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory-II mean score change, -3.5 [95% CI, -4.7 to -2.3] vs -4.3 [95% CI, -5.7 to -2.9]), fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory mean score change, -4.7 [95% CI, -7.3 to -2.2] vs -5.2 [95% CI, -7.9 to -2.5]), functional impairments (Work and Social Adjustment Scale mean score change, -5.0 [95% CI, -6.7 to -3.3] vs -5.1 [95% CI, -7.2 to -2.9]), and mental health (SF-36 mental health subscale mean score change, 3.5 [95% CI, 1.9-5.1] vs 2.5 [95% CI, 0.4-4.5]), while BT produced larger improvements for anxiety symptoms relative to zolpidem (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory mean score change, -4.1 [95% CI, -5.8 to -2.4] vs -1.2 [95% CI, -3.0 to 0.5]; P = .02; Cohen d = 0.55). Second-stage therapy produced additional improvements for the 2 conditions starting with zolpidem at posttreatment in fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory mean score change: zolpidem plus BT, -3.8 [95% CI, -7.1 to -0.4]; zolpidem plus trazodone, -3.7 [95% CI, -6.3 to -1.1]), functional impairments (Work and Social Adjustment Scale mean score change: zolpidem plus BT, -3.7 [95% CI, -6.4 to -1.0]; zolpidem plus trazodone, -3.3 [95% CI, -5.9 to -0.7]) and mental health (SF-36 mental health subscale mean score change: zolpidem plus BT, 5.3 [95% CI, 2.7-7.9]; zolpidem plus trazodone, 2.0 [95% CI, 0.1-4.0]). Treatment benefits achieved at posttreatment were well maintained throughout the 12-month follow-up, and additional improvements were noted for patients receiving the BT treatment sequences. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of adults with insomnia disorder, BT and zolpidem produced improvements for various daytime symptoms of insomnia that were no different between treatments. Adding a second treatment offered an added value with further improvements of daytime functions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01651442.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».